Bombay High Court
Waman S/O Lobhaji Dhakate vs Schedule Tribe Caste Cert. Scrutiny ... on 15 December, 2016
Author: Swapna Joshi
Bench: Vasanti A Naik, Swapna Joshi
WP 6704.16.[J].odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6704 OF 2016
Waman s/o Lobhaji Dhakate,
Aged about 48 years,
Occupation-Nil,
R/o. Umari, Lawari,
Tahsil-Sakoli, District-Bhandara. .. Petitioner
.. Versus ..
1] Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, through its
Member/Secretary, Giri Peth,
Nagpur.
2] Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Bhandara. .. Respondents
..........
Shri S.D. Khati, Advocate for the petitioner,
Shri Nikhil Joshi, AGP for respondent no.1.
..........
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : DECEMBER 15, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of his termination dated 14.6.2007 and seeks the protection of his service after his reinstatement by relying on the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone .vs. State of Maharashtra and others, ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:15:54 ::: WP 6704.16.[J].odt 2 reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457.
The petitioner was appointed as a Arogya Sevak on 27.11.1997.
The petitioner claimed to belong to Halba caste falling under Schedule Tribes category. The caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The respondent no.1-Scrutiny Committee, vide order dated 3.4.2006, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. The respondent no.2-Zilla Parishad, on invalidation of the petitioner's caste claim, terminated his services, vide order dated 14.6.2007.
Shri Khati, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the case of the petitioner stands covered by the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone .vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2015 (1) Mh.L.J. 457 and therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement as well as the protection of his services, as the petitioner was appointed before the cut off date in the year 1997 and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee about any fraud being practiced by the petitioner while seeking the benefits meant for Halba Scheduled Tribe. The learned counsel contended that the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated, as the petitioner could not prove the same on the basis of the documents and the affinity test.
Shri Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1-Scrutiny Committee, does not dispute the position of law as laid down by the Full Bench. The learned Assistant Government Pleader fairly admitted that the petitioner was appointed before the cut off date that is 28.11.2000 and there is no adverse observation against ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:15:54 ::: WP 6704.16.[J].odt 3 the petitioner in the order of the Scrutiny Committee, except that the caste claim of the petitioner is invalidated. The learned Assistant Government Pleader fairly admitted that a finding of fraud is not recorded against the petitioner in the order of the Scrutiny Committee.
In the case of Arun Sonone .vs. State of Maharashtra, protection of services can be granted on fulfillment of 3 conditions viz. i) that upon verification by Scrutiny Committee, the caste certificate produced to secure appointment is not found to be false and fraudulent, ii) that appointee shall not take any advantage in terms of promotion or otherwise after 28.11.2000 solely on the basis of his claim as a candidate belonging to any of the Backward Class Category, iii) it shall be permissible for competent authority to withdraw the benefit or promotion obtained after 28.11.2000.
After hearing both the sides and on a perusal of the judgment of the Full Bench and the record, it appears that both the conditions, that are required to be satisfied while seeking the protection of services in view of the judgment of the Full Bench, stand satisfied in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1997 that is before the cut off date and there is no observation in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner had fraudulently secured the benefits meant for Halba Scheduled Tribe. In view thereof, the services of the petitioner need to be protected.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent no.2-Zilla Parishad is directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Arogya Sevak on the condition that the petitioner tenders an undertaking in this Court and before the respondent no.2 within a period of ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:15:54 ::: WP 6704.16.[J].odt 4 four weeks that neither the petitioner nor his progeny would claim the benefits meant for Halba Scheduled Tribe, in future. The respondent no.2-Zilla Parishad should reinstate the petitioner within two weeks from the date of submission of the undertaking. It is needless to mention that though the petitioner is entitled to continuity of service, the petitioner would not be entitled to the arrears of salary or any monetary benefits flowing from the order of continuity of service for the period during which he was out of service.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gulande, PA
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2016 00:15:54 :::